[cotvnc-devel] [ cotvnc-Bugs-1407743 ] saved "display/port" data used as "display" after upgrade

[SourceForge.net <no...@so...>]

Bugs item #1407743, was opened at 2006-01-16 16:16
Message generated for change (Comment added) made by smeger
You can respond by visiting: 
https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=507159&aid=1407743&group_id=64347

Please note that this message will contain a full copy of the comment thread,
including the initial issue submission, for this request,
not just the latest update.
Category: None
Group: None
Status: Open
Resolution: None
Priority: 5
Submitted By: Phillip Mocek (pmocek)
Assigned to: Nobody/Anonymous (nobody)
Summary: saved "display/port" data used as "display" after upgrade

Initial Comment:
Beginning with version 2.0b3, "display/port" field from
previously-saved server configuration data is
interpreted in the connect dialogue strictly as a
display number.  Server connections which were, using
previous versions of cotvnc, configured by specifying a
port number will have that port number silently
mis-interpreted as a display number, causing cotvnc to
attempt connection to port #(configured port + 5900).

Given that previous versions were able to determine
whether a display number or port number was specified,
this version should do the same and if it finds a port
number, explain the situation and offer to update user
configuration to be compatible with new behavior.

see also: ticket 1302701

----------------------------------------------------------------------

>Comment By: Jason Harris (smeger)
Date: 2006-01-16 17:31

Message:
Logged In: YES 
user_id=351330

In 2.0b3, we stopped trying to guess whether the display/port was a display 
or a port, since we guessed wrong enough to annoy people, and because it 
meant that there was no way of using certain display or port numbers.  

Instead, you can enter a port using the standard syntax of server:port OR you 
can enter a display number using the provided text field.

BUT!  If we're not migrating them properly from earlier versions, that is 
indeed a bug.

----------------------------------------------------------------------

You can respond by visiting: 
https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=507159&aid=1407743&group_id=64347